Talk:John McCain/archive1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --Daniel B. Douglas 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --Hsmom 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --Dikaiosune 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). Myk 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. Myk 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --Hsmom 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

What is this page going to be?

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. Myk 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --TK 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. MountainDew 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ TerryK MyTalk 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)


This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. Myk 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ TerryK MyTalk 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.
Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.Myk 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Need for personal/family section

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. Duncan Hunter is the only other candidate who can claim even one. Amyz 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

RE: Political Record

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --Puellanivis 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)


The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? Dadsnagem2 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces

McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.

This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --DHayes 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Another Image

Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.Chippeterson

I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --₮K/Talk 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Hate speech laws

McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? CaptainRoemer 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --Benp 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--Aschlafly 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.
--Benp 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. Darkmind1970 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.


He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --Jareddr 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. FernoKlump 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--jp 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --Jareddr 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--jp 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --Jareddr 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
touché--jp 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Jared from Subway, like the changes?--jp 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of CP Commandment #1. --Jareddr 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--jp 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added here on your own? --Jareddr 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--jp 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --Jareddr 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--jp 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

2nd paragraph, first sentence

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --jp 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --Jareddr 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--jp 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --Jareddr 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

2007 Fundraising

This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--jp 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

JP, I have made a few edits, albeit minor ones, to some existing pages so as to honor the 90/10 policy. My apologies for not taking note earlier. I'm in the process of making more edits. As for this paragraph, I'm a little wary of removing something like this (granted, it's not here anymore so I can't see what it said) because there was a lot of controversy surrounding McCain's fundraising protocol that was addressed by both liberal and credible sources. Do we really want to sweep something under the rug because it doesn't look pretty? That's stooping to liberal level...Even Wikipedia addresses the apparently negative aspects surrounding Democratic figureheads, thus if we don't do the same, my concern is that we are going to be seen as less than Wikipedia. Acwellman 14:47, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Re: Reversion

"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. DannyRedful 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. Learn together 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)


Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--jp 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --Jareddr 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Fine with me--jp 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Conflicting Facts

Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--jp 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)


Whoa. He was married to his first wife at the same time that he recieved a marriage certificate? Does this mean that, legally speaking, he was married to two people at the same time? Or, at the very least, does it mean he was in(volved with) Cindy before he had divorced his wife? I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, I swear on that, but I was just curious because if so, I think it speaks a lot about his commitment to her and creates a better picture of his character. Thanks. LinusWilson 20:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The technical term is bigamy, since he was only married to two women at the same time. And yes, he was married to both of them at the same time. Knullmaskin 12:36, 12 July 2008 (EDT)


This article seems to have borrowed some lines from the Bush smear campaign. John McCain divorced his first wife Carol (April 2, 1980) and married Cindy (May 17, 1980) about six weeks apart. There is, and never has been, any controversy about his marriage except for those who say that he did not work hard to resolve issues with his first wife, and that he had little care for her.

Those statements are all lies. McCain came back from Vietnam a changed man. He was eager to rebuild his life and wanted to begin a strong, bold career change. Politics came as second nature to him, and as some have stated,[1] McCain was resolute on having more children and on improving his condition. His wife, who was struggling with the effects of a life-changing car accident, was unable to meet many of the stressful challenges that faced McCain after the war, and their marriage was said to have fell apart mutually.

  1. Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People 2003. pg. 93

--CTrooper 18:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

McCain quote

When questioned during the 2000 presidential campaign about his experience in captivity, he replied, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Later, when asked about whether he meant an ethnic slur, he replied, "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."[1]

I removed this quote from the 2000 election section. It is unimportant trivia, and in many ways, it only represents a journalist's spin on an ambiguous statement. More importantly, it reveals little to nothing about the political issues or beliefs that McCain had at the time. Nonetheless, I am sure there are those who will disagree and who want this quote re-instated, so post feedback below:

It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. Where's the ambiguity and how exactly would you spin it? I think anyone who uses such racial slurs reveals something about themselves. What section of his entry would you like to put this in instead? --Jareddr 22:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
The statement was spun against him by Bush and many liberal pundits then and now. What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate; you are suggesting that what he said was a slur directed at race, while he explicitly stated that it was not. Also, it is put forward without context or resolution, especially because he apologized and it is written in a PR format. Rather, it may help to identify the basis that it holds in the context of the 2000 election, ex: California was considered a swing state in the primaries, for instance.--CTrooper 22:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
I think the use of a slur, however you want to deem it was directed, is important, and I attempted to put it within the time line you insist upon. As far as my views on those who use slurs, how do you feel about them? Do you condone the use of a slur word, even when the user has to go on to spin/explain that it wasn't directed at a race? He even acknowledges that it's offensive, "in language that may offend some people." If he's not afraid to use the term, then I think people should be aware of that fact. Perhaps our ideas of what a dictionary is are different. I believe it should be a fact-filled resource, and you'd prefer to put those aside and use laudatory statements instead. Maybe we can compromise and just find a good section for the remarks, perhaps a Quotes section? --Jareddr 22:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
First and foremost, this is not a personal matter between us. We are working together on an encyclopedia, and your attempts to call me racist or culturally insensitive are unwarranted, uncivil, and downright disgusting. Slandering others is not and should not be your reason for being here. That being said, I would like to remind you that McCain was a longstanding supporter of Vietnam-American relations, and cultivated a very favorable opinion among Vietnamese Americans. The statement in question was not a matter or racism, but rather, or political correctness. Apparently, you haven't made the distinction, as you said "If he's not afraid to use the term, I think that's a problem" whereas the more factual approach would be "he still has hatred towards his prison guards, and expresses it in ways that are reckless". Furthermore, given the coverage of the 2000 election, I would find it hard to justify placing the quote inside that section; there simply isn't any context explaining the significance or historical background. Perhaps if the campaign was explained in better terms, and I mean far more extensively, this statement could be put in the section within appropriate context.--CTrooper 09:31, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
You were actually the one who first made this a personal matter when you stated, "What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate;" I wasn't even making a judgment about the quote in the entry. I was including the information so that other people could come to their own conclusions. If you don't want it in the 2000 election section, perhaps we should put it amongst his Vietnam service section. I think immediately concluding his POW section would be a good spot, as it directly relates to his captivity and prison guards. Would you like to place it there or shall I? --Jareddr 09:40, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and can you please point to the spot where I called you a racist or culturally insensitive? I don't recall using either of those words, so I'd be interested in you locating that quote. If, on the other hand, you can't find the spot where I called you either of those, then I do expect an apology, as it was an unwarranted, uncivil, and completely false accusation on your part. --Jareddr 09:42, 17 July 2008 (EDT)


Since the article mentions McCain's positions on Iraq and Iran, how about mentioning his views on Czechoslovakia? He's mentioned twice in speeches in the last week concerns about events going on right now in Czechoslovakia.... (Czechoslovakia has not existed at all since 1993).

Ctrooprers edits

Although I reverted the edits, I tend to agree with them as the sections he removed are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Certainly they would be appropriate in a very lengthy essay about the presidential compaign but I don't think it's necessary here. I suggest we try to get a consensus over the next 48 hours and so if no-one objects I'll delete the comments.--DamianJohn 17:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Some of them are valid in the context that McCain has been getting more press lately regarding his gaffes, not because they are simple mistakes, but because of concerns about his age and fitness to serve for the next 4-8 years. The Iran/Al-Qaeda gaffe was noteworthy because Senator Lieberman had to interrupt him and correct him in front of reporters. In the past week he also talked about tensions on "the Iraq/Afghanistan border". McCain has made comments I can research (read them on Huffington) denying his prior positions and quotes, which are either complete reversals of position or lapses in memory. Are these actual signs of unfitness? I'm not sure about that, but including them in the McCain article under the heading "Concerns about age" would be entirely appropriate since it has been discussed in the press ans Sunday talk shows as well. --DinsdaleP 17:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that these should be filed under "Concerns about age", because I don't think they're necessarily age-related. Rather, Shia v. Sunni is particularly important, and for him to make the mistake twice brings questions to his knowledge and criticisms of Obama over foreign policy. But to put them under "concerns about age" trivializes them and makes it seem petty, IMO. --Jareddr 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I absolutely object. I think two of the quotes are very appropriate for the article. The first is relevant in that Obama was being criticized here for the use of the word "bomb" as opposed to "bombs", and saying "57 states" instead of "47 states". Also, McCain's criticism of Obama and foreign policy, when McCain has repeatedly confused Sunni and Shia, and who makes up the majority of the Iranian population and Al Qaeda. If you want to delete the second one, I won't be terribly opposed to it. And the third is important in that much of McCain's campaign centers around his military service. When Wes Clark made his remarks recently about military service as a qualification for president, there was an uproar. I think it is, therefore, very relevant when McCain talks about military service---especially when he's said something that flies in the face of what he now claims. --Jareddr 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
Re the Obama Criticism. Remember that that was in the main page, which is basically just a trivia/blog section, whereas this article is part of the encyclopedia proper, and thus must be accurate and trustworthy like all the other pages are. Therefore I don't think its fair to compare the Obama gaffe with that here. I suggest that the first should be left in as being relevant to his ability to perform the presidency, but the second and third should be removed as trivia.
The second example, misstating "57 states" instead of "47 states" was not part of the trivia/blog section, but is in the article. And it wasn't a misstatement, but he stated it on two consecutive days, so you know his campaign corrected him after the first instance.--Jareddr 18:29, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

While I commend everyone for your work and interest, we should remember this generic article is about John McCain. Saying who he is, how he got there, and what he believes is fine, but individual elements and speeches during his Presidential run should probably be handled under the Presidential campaign articles. It could certainly be grouped there in ways that could flow more easily. Learn together 12:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Mention of NY Times Op-Ed rejection under Iraq Heading

I'm not sure the rejection of a single Op-Ed piece merits a mention in an encyclopedia article on McCain - It's already covered in CP under Liberal Bias anyway, and seems trivial in this context. If its inclusion here can be justified, then it should be moved to a different heading like "McCain and the Media" instead of "Iraq", since the nature of the Op-Ed piece the Times was looking for spanned more than Iraq. It should also be revised, because in it's current form it's misleading as to why the original piece was rejected. --DinsdaleP 09:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, its trivial fluff and it's prejudicial content is greater than its probative value.--DamianJohn 09:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
I have removed the section. The story itself is irrelevant to McCain's political beliefs, and in consideration of the longstanding cooperation that the New York Times has provided to the Senator, I feel that there is no wrongdoing or substantial political swipe connected to this. I appreciate the well-cited, researched information, but placing the day-to-day events of what is included or excluded in a newspaper does not connect well with the article. It would be more appropriate for the Presidential campaign, but even in that context, it is rather weak and inconsequential.--CTrooper 11:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

McCain vs. Obama

Based on the obvious bias towards McCain shown in the difference between the two articles, why not just SAY that Conservapedia endorses McCain? Both men have flaws; if you lead with the flaws in the Obama article, and suppress McCain's flaws due to bias, how is this an encyclopedia and how is it "trustworthy?" Yes, I am a liberal, but I may vote for McCain based on experience, but until the election, it would be nice to see unbiased versions of the articles. Yesaliberal 10:16, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

We are keeping the McCain article as unbiased as possible as a stand-alone piece. Learn together 12:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
And the Obama article? --Jareddr 12:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Should be discussed on the Obama page. We do the best we can with the John McCain article on this, the John McCain page. Learn together 12:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but the original question pertained to both the McCain and Obama article. You only answered about the McCain article, and quite clearly stated about keeping it as unbiased as possible. You have the ability to give an answer to me about the Obama article here, but specifically chose not to relate it to the question, but instead said take it elsewhere. Since the original question pertained to both, I hope that you will answer both---or let me know and I'll post it on the Obama talk page and you can answer it there instead. --Jareddr 12:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
This is the McCain article. I answer questions on John McCain and how to make this article the best it can be. Feel free to post the question on Obama's talk page since, ostensibly, that is the article where you have the most concerns. As I no longer frequent that article, you will not receive a reply from me. Learn together 12:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)


My edit to the Personal Life section of the article should not be reverted, as it is a valid contribution to the page. It is part of his personal life, and it is note-worthy. In the interest of keeping the article unbiased, both the positive and negative should be included. --AlrightThen 20:48, 8 August 2008 (CDT)

Hmm, so men don't cheat on their wives anymore. They "have difficulties with" them. Glad you guys are working so hard to defend the institution of marriage. Fishal 19:55, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
Both of the above comments are incomplete, and it's impossible to glean what your points are. Try to be clearer. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:58, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

This issue has come up in the past. Please see my talk page under McCain Edit and the reasons why your edit is inappropriate. Then please move on to constructive edits. Thank you Learn together 20:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Bridget McCain

There seems to be conflicting information regarding Bridget McCain's birth year (1991 or 1993). According to the other reference Jpratt uses, "", the site states, "Cindy McCain was touring 3rd world countries with Mother Teresa in 1991 to provide medical attention to needy children. During this tour, Cindy and Mother Teresa toured an orphanage in Bangladesh where Cindy picked up a baby that was only a few months old." Also, under the Bio section, "Bridget McCain was born in 1991 in Bangladesh." Bridget McCain is John McCain's Daughter. Any suggestions for a way to resolve the differing information? --Jareddr 15:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

The India link wasn't enough for ya? Google search 1-70k for 1993, 1-58k for 1991-- 50 star flag.png jp 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
The India link, which was confusing and not very clear, I would match with the rightpundits site I provided. So two sites with differing information. And if the Google results were 70k to 12, then I would consider that evidence. But 70k v. 58k isn't a strong case for one or the other. --Jareddr 15:51, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and if you google "Bridget McCain" 1991, you get 779 results. Doing the same with 1993 yields 546 results. --Jareddr 15:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Oh, if your Google search is limited to english only sites, you get 58k Bridget McCain 1991 and you get 71k Bridget McCain 1993-- 50 star flag.png jp 15:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Suggestion for an administrator

This article has become so long, I think it would look nicer if there were more pictures. I was hoping one of you could upload these into the article. under "foreign policy" and this under "2008 Presidential campaign." If not that's fine, but I would appreciate it. Chippeterson 20 August 2008

You need to check out who owns those pictures first and whether it's OK with them for others to copy them. Thanks.--Aschlafly 22:31, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I just got them from a blog while searching Google images. Hard for me to find out who "owns" them. Chippeterson 20 August 2008

O.K., I emailed Top, which is where I got this image, They said I could use it because it's under "creative commons license." Chippeterson 21 August 2008


On the main page, much was made of Obama's lack of educational achievements. [1] That article mentions that McCain actually graduated in the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy. I think that this information that should go into the McCain article. --DrHubertJNugz 15:38, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Obama article: [...]He graduated magna cum laude with his J.D. in 1991[...]
So yes, ASchlafly is censoring the truth, even though his edit summary claims that Obama didn't release his college performance. Magna cum laude is a really good performance. SamuelHTD 10:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
You will have to take it up with Andy. Based on the idea that Obama has not opened up his college record for review, a decision was made to remove that information on McCain. It it were permissible, I would want to see the wording, "near the bottom of his class". It seems less sensational that way. Learn together 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
You mean this Andy? Yeah, right, the only result I can think of is hitting my head against a brick wall. Since when does Obama's college record have anything to do with disclosing McCain's? Obama says "57 states", it's jumped all over. Obama says "my Muslim faith", its jumped all over. McCain doesn't remember how many houses he owns, but its vehemently denied into his article. Pretty simple to see what's going on, but I shouldn't be the one (powerless) who stands up to it. SamuelHTD 14:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
That is just b.s. SamuelHTD. Obama need not disclose but since McCains has, it is fair game? This is a site with conservative POV but that doesn't mean liberals have not included 'not-in-the-best-light' statements on McCain's page. Do we need to include every liberal attack against McCain? Hell no. BTW, I am not expecting your return comment since you're gone. ta ta-- 50 star flag.png jp 15:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm baaaack, your parthian shot failed. If you don't include the information because the other candidate didn't disclose yadda yadda, what's with the hubbub over Obama's "alleged" birth, with birth certificate provided, compared to McCain's lack of birth certificate, and doesn't even show on the record of births? Going by your logic, we should either a) post that McCain can't prove his birth record, or b) remove all the gossip and ideology regarding Obama's birth? Sam 10:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
For what it's worth, the Joe Biden article mentions quite a bit about his academic record, including the current cost of the high school he attended over 40 years ago, and the fact that he graduated "from the Syracuse University College of Law in 1968 near the bottom of his class".--Hsmom 11:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

"Allard's amendment"

In the Same-sex marriage section, it includes a quote where McCain refers to "Senator Allard's amendment", but the section makes no reference before this to what Senator Allard's amendment is. Perhaps the section could be cleaned up a bit, and a short description included. I know many people can derive a general sense of the bill's content through context, but younger readers might find this a bit confusing, and I didn't want to perform major "article surgery" without an idea of what the "operation" should be! Mcliff 14:22, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Many of those sections near the ends need some work. HelpJazz 14:34, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Agreed. I'll try to clean them up today.


Also, does this need to be written this way "Prisoner-of-War"? I'm not used to seeing it written this way, with hyphens and capitalization. It's fine to keep War capitalized in the title, but it's written as "prisoner of war" in the article too, and it seems to me that it's not a proper noun. [2] Mcliff 14:42, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Biased introduction paragraph

Whether or not you support John McCain should not bias your summary of John McCain. Using phrases like "prominent maverick" or "influential leader" should be cited if there is actual solid proof of their validity. If not they should be removed since they have been presented as facts. I am not saying they are not true I am only saying they are misleading without proper citation. Any claim one makes should be cited if one is presenting it to be fact.

Hopefully there is information in the article itself that would help one to see the validity of the statements. It would be hard to 'cite' the entire article. That John McCain was considered to be the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate on the 2004 ticket should tell you that he's a maverick. As far as being a leader, any of the numerous bills that he has put forth and pushed for already show that. When you tackle an issue like campaign finance reform, that would annoy both parties, and you actually get it to take a position of prominence under your leadership, then we are allowed to acknowledge that as leadership. Learn together 14:06, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Confederate flag

What is the reason for this revert? BHarlan 18:19, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

It was somewhat negative.--IanG 18:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
I was surprised by your response until I looked at your edit history. I am trying to have a serious discussion here and help build an encyclopedia. I doubt anyone is interested in helping you be snarky. BHarlan 18:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

McCain & Evolution

JakobL says McCain is clearly against evolution. I think he understands it but feels not appropriate for Science class. What says you? --Jpatt 13:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

This link: indicates that McCain is something of a theistic evolutionist. - Martib 14:25, 4 November 2008 (EST)

John McCain's view of evolution is not "nuanced." He is a darwinist who rejects God's influence in our world. We criticize Obama for being muslim- but John McCain is hardly a conservative and denies the very nature of a Christian God. Let's call a spade a spade. --DReynolds 10:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)
  1. [